Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Because we're still proposing cuts to clean Brown's mess. Nobody likes having to go without things they want, Cameron is like a dietitian telling an obese nation that we can't have unlimited sweeties.
Honesty isn't popular.
Unspecified benefits cuts, countered by rises in personal allowance and the 40p tax rate? You think that's being harsh on the electorate?
The electorate think its being hard on the electorate, and they are being told that it is being hard on them.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Great post from earlier today showing wage rise v inflation in the February of General Election year. That tells you why so many voters find the Tories economy going well narrative so nauseating.
I think nauseating is a bit strong. Basically it is not being felt strongly. It is improved but not by a lot after the worst recession for 100 years.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Voters priorities have changed. They never liked David Cameron or the Tories anyway, now that they are not needed they can get rid of them, the Tories had a better economic record in 1997 and they still lost.
Frankly the Tories image problem was going all Scrooge (or Donald Trump) on the average middle class or poor, but Cameron choose to try to detoxify with social issues which non-Tory voters cared very little, but Tory voters did and hit the roof and they left for UKIP.
In scotland you have a clear split between all those who believe that independence will solve any kind of economic or social problem with north sea oil, and those who do not.
Those who do (45%), vote SNP regardless if they are conservative, liberal or lefty because they genuinely believe that all of their demands will be granted by the new scotish state even if those are conflicting demands.
Those who do not (55%), split in the traditional 3 parts but since scotland is more left leaning than normal, the lions share of that 55% goes to Labour, but realistically the 55% split in 3 will never beat the 45% who is united, you will have to reduce the 45% by either discouraging the SNP that it can succeed or starve it by removing the root of all this evil (North Sea Oil).
In short, all parties apart from the SNP are doomed in FPTP elections until either the SNP voters get bored and frustrated or you make scottish independence economically and politically unfeasible.
It's more complex than that. I voted Yes (despite not coming close to the belief you attribute to the 45%) and in this general election I will probably vote UKIP. The SNP's shift to the left is very offputting to me. If it kills off SLAB (atrocious troughers for the most part) I'll take it, but I can't bring myself to support it at the ballot box.
Look at it this way - if Scotland becomes independent, it'll be forced to confront financial reality with the loss of the Barnett formula / unpredictability of North Sea Oil revenues........and will shift rightward. That is one of the reasons why I support Scottish independence. The transition period would be messy, but Scotland can become a very successful country on its own once the Scottish enterprising spirit is rekindled.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Because we're still proposing cuts to clean Brown's mess. Nobody likes having to go without things they want, Cameron is like a dietitian telling an obese nation that we can't have unlimited sweeties.
Honesty isn't popular.
Unspecified benefits cuts, countered by rises in personal allowance and the 40p tax rate? You think that's being harsh on the electorate?
Do I think its harsh? No, I think it's sensible and responsible.
Do I think its different compared to every other party promising unlimited candy - and actually having a track record of responsibility in recent years too - absolutely.
This is a nation which is hooked on spending money we don't have. Both from the government and for individuals. Voters not rushing for a party not promising maxing out the credit card isn't unsurprising.
Forget the polls, Jimmy Anderson has just become England's greatest ever test wicket bowler. Does this achievement not deserve at least a single mention?
To overtake Botham is an impressive record. After a bright few years there's not been much to cheer about recently in English cricket; Anderson however has been consistently good for a long time though. He deserves this achievement.
Still well short of other countries leading wicket takers and considering the amount of test match cricket England play, not to decry Jimmy's achievement.
Australia - Warne 708 wkts, Sri Lanka Murali 800, WI Courtney Walsh (521 from memory) puts 384 into context.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Because we're still proposing cuts to clean Brown's mess. Nobody likes having to go without things they want, Cameron is like a dietitian telling an obese nation that we can't have unlimited sweeties.
Honesty isn't popular.
Miliband is promising the same thing, essentially, and yet he can still end up as PM though.
Miliband has opposed every cut for the last five years and hasn't specified any real cuts he'll make now. He's promising candy, not vegetables.
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of , even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
As above, so below.
This essentially means there are three voting blocks of about 33% each in the UK:
UKIP-Con LibCon Labour-SNP-Green
Welcome to my theory of political alignments.
Politics always splits roughly in 3 equal pieces in economic and social affairs with priorities changing between economic problems or social problems, each 1/3 is essentially represented by a conservative, a liberal, and a lefty party, with their strengths and positioning changing with each leader and policy priority, but there is only enough space for 3 major parties.
The order today is: UKIP is the conservative party Tories are the liberal party Labour is the lefty party
Pre-2010 it was: Tories the conservative party Labour as the liberal party LD as the lefty party
And pre-1997 it was Tories the conservative party LD as the liberal party Labour as the lefty party
Where does that leave Scottish Labour?
you make scottish independence economically and politically unfeasible.
The economy turning down from the start of October will be the final ingredient that makes Scottish independence possible. Thought that Sturgeon's line of another referendum given a change in circumstances was extremely clever. Well that 'changed circumstance' will be a UK sovereign debt crisis which will be the final rocket fuel needed to secure the SNP dream of an independent Scotland. And until that moment is reached, no government in Westminster is going to be in a remotely powerful position.
At what point will scotland take more in subsidies from Britain than the total of North Sea Oil income?
Don't know, but I suspect the old mantra 'in good times people come together, in bad times people split apart' holds for nations and Scotland will be only too glad to cut itself free from a UK ensnared in a sovereign debt crisis.
Would be quite difficult since Britain prints it's own money, if there is a problem the BoE will do QE and buy the Bonds, you can have no sovereign debt crisis as long as the debt is denominated in your own currency that you control.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Because we're still proposing cuts to clean Brown's mess. Nobody likes having to go without things they want, Cameron is like a dietitian telling an obese nation that we can't have unlimited sweeties.
Honesty isn't popular.
Unspecified benefits cuts, countered by rises in personal allowance and the 40p tax rate? You think that's being harsh on the electorate?
Do I think its harsh? No, I think it's sensible and responsible.
Do I think its different compared to every other party promising unlimited candy - and actually having a track record of responsibility in recent years too - absolutely.
This is a nation which is hooked on spending money we don't have. Both from the government and for individuals. Voters not rushing for a party not promising maxing out the credit card isn't unsurprising.
? The Conservatives have almost doubled the national debt in the past five years. How big a credit card did you have in mind?
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Both big parties have big strategic issues. Let's assume Ed is PM next month propped up by the SNP:-
The Tories wouldn't have won a majority in 28 years ( by 2020 ), would only have scored 33,37, and (35?) in the past three elections, would've failed to win outright and lost in consecutive elections to G Brown and E Milliband (ffs!) and would've cocked up the boundary changes that might've kept them in power. Longer term they have to find a way of appealing better to ethnic minorities. On the plus side I suspect a lot of Kippers might get buyers' remorse as it dawns on them their indulgence has landed them with Ed ( and the Tartan terror), and eventually the ( growing ) population weight in the South and East will get reflected in seats as the boundary commission slowly plods forward.
Labour: well for all of governing for 18 of 23 years from 1997, aside from 1997 and 2001, it's really down to quirks of the electoral system not popularity, having won 36,29, and (35?) in the past three elections ( so less than the Tories). They would've suffered a generational cataclysm in Scotland from which they may ( "may" note not "will") never fully recover for all of Ed being PM ( think the Liberals losing Ireland in the 1880's - 1906 notwithstanding they never quite recovered strategically). They will be caught between pandering to the Celtic fringe and trying not to piss off the English. Hard not to laugh as this will be the rewards of the absolute gerrymandered buggeration that was devolution introduced in 1997, (you can have a federal State or a centralised one - long term anything else is a dog's dinner). Nobody not called Blair has won a workable Labour majority since 1966 ( and he only won 36% in 2005!).
In short we need electoral reform, as we are too fragmented to keep the present system, and to keep a degree of legitimacy.
I know the LDs are trying to say they are neither left or right leaning, in effect, but is that possibly true? I find it hard to square with my mental picture of them.
There are at least two different LD parties (and possibly three):
1. There are the Orange Bookers, who are a bunch of socially liberal, economically free market, metropolitans. They are in favour of gay marriage, legalising drugs, and the free movement of goods and services. By and large, they are fairly small state, and if there is a difference with the historic conservative party it is on the subject of law and order.
2. There are the sandal wearing liberals, who are economically left wing and awkward; they are descendents of the dissenters (and the quakers and the unitarians), and would like to be in the Labour Party but loathe its links to the unions.
3. There is the (diminished) Social Democratic element, who came from the Labour Party, and feel that what the UK needs is a good continental style social democrat party.
1 is represented by David Laws and Danny Alexander; 2 by Tim Farron and Sarah Teather; and 3 by Vince Cable.
What - historically - united 1 and 2 was a strong belief in the primacy of the individual, as regards sodomy, civil rights, divorce, and the like.
During the 2010 to 2015 period, almost all the 3s have left, and so have a lot of 2s. What remains is a lot of Orange Bookers.
Sounds more appealing to me, but apparently a maximum of 10% of the country agrees with me on that.
The problem is that many of those who would find the Orange Bookers appealing as defined by Robert are driven away by their Europhilia - which is very much at odds with the small state claims.
I think you are on to something here. How can you believe in a small state, accountable governance, localism and democracy while also supporting the European Union? The classical liberals of the 19th Century understood well that the only way liberal democracy would succeed would be if European borders were reshaped to represent the different nation groups. To have democracy you need a demos. That's why they supported breaking up the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires, while supporting the unification of Germany and Italy. The liberal democrats that profess to be their heirs seem to have completely forgotten this lesson.
Forget the polls, Jimmy Anderson has just become England's greatest ever test wicket bowler. Does this achievement not deserve at least a single mention?
To overtake Botham is an impressive record. After a bright few years there's not been much to cheer about recently in English cricket; Anderson however has been consistently good for a long time though. He deserves this achievement.
Still well short of other countries leading wicket takers and considering the amount of test match cricket England play, not to decry Jimmy's achievement.
Australia - Warne 708 wkts, Sri Lanka Murali 800, WI Courtney Walsh (521 from memory) puts 384 into context.
Indeed Anderson is no Warne or McGrath. Then again, Warne and McGrath had each other to back each other up, Anderson has gone through many periods where there is no pressure on the other end. Makes it much harder to take wickets if the batsmen can be safe on your bowling without pressure from the other bowlers.
In scotland you have a clear split between all those who believe that independence will solve any kind of economic or social problem with north sea oil, and those who do not.
Those who do (45%), vote SNP regardless if they are conservative, liberal or lefty because they genuinely believe that all of their demands will be granted by the new scotish state even if those are conflicting demands.
Those who do not (55%), split in the traditional 3 parts but since scotland is more left leaning than normal, the lions share of that 55% goes to Labour, but realistically the 55% split in 3 will never beat the 45% who is united, you will have to reduce the 45% by either discouraging the SNP that it can succeed or starve it by removing the root of all this evil (North Sea Oil).
In short, all parties apart from the SNP are doomed in FPTP elections until either the SNP voters get bored and frustrated or you make scottish independence economically and politically unfeasible.
It's more complex than that. I voted Yes (despite not coming close to the belief you attribute to the 45%) and in this general election I will probably vote UKIP. The SNP's shift to the left is very offputting to me. If it kills off SLAB (atrocious troughers for the most part) I'll take it, but I can't bring myself to support it at the ballot box.
The SNP's move to left is what gives the Tories hope in Scotland. However since so many people have been brought up being told that the Conservatives are evil over the last 20 years, it could easily be another generation before the Blues are able to get back to winning 10+ seats in general elections. The brand is still just so toxic to so many.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Because we're still proposing cuts to clean Brown's mess. Nobody likes having to go without things they want, Cameron is like a dietitian telling an obese nation that we can't have unlimited sweeties.
Honesty isn't popular.
The last thing Cameron looks like is a dietician. Isn't that one of the problems?
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Because we're still proposing cuts to clean Brown's mess. Nobody likes having to go without things they want, Cameron is like a dietitian telling an obese nation that we can't have unlimited sweeties.
Honesty isn't popular.
Miliband is promising the same thing, essentially, and yet he can still end up as PM though.
Miliband has opposed every cut for the last five years and hasn't specified any real cuts he'll make now. He's promising candy, not vegetables.
Last night he was all about how serious he would be about cutting and being sensible. And whether he says it or not, he will end up doing it, out of necessity, so the difference is not that stark was my main point. But only Miliband can get votes from those wanting candy, even if he promises (or delivers) vegetables, and that's one reason he will win.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Because we're still proposing cuts to clean Brown's mess. Nobody likes having to go without things they want, Cameron is like a dietitian telling an obese nation that we can't have unlimited sweeties.
Honesty isn't popular.
Unspecified benefits cuts, countered by rises in personal allowance and the 40p tax rate? You think that's being harsh on the electorate?
I don't - but the electorate do - and that's the problem.
I know the LDs are trying to say they are neither left or right leaning, in effect, but is that possibly true? I find it hard to square with my mental picture of them.
There are at least two different LD parties (and possibly three):
1. There are the Orange Bookers, who are a bunch of socially liberal, economically free market, metropolitans. They are in favour of gay marriage, legalising drugs, and the free movement of goods and services. By and large, they are fairly small state, and if there is a difference with the historic conservative party it is on the subject of law and order.
2. There are the sandal wearing liberals, who are economically left wing and awkward; they are descendents of the dissenters (and the quakers and the unitarians), and would like to be in the Labour Party but loathe its links to the unions.
3. There is the (diminished) Social Democratic element, who came from the Labour Party, and feel that what the UK needs is a good continental style social democrat party.
1 is represented by David Laws and Danny Alexander; 2 by Tim Farron and Sarah Teather; and 3 by Vince Cable.
What - historically - united 1 and 2 was a strong belief in the primacy of the individual, as regards sodomy, civil rights, divorce, and the like.
During the 2010 to 2015 period, almost all the 3s have left, and so have a lot of 2s. What remains is a lot of Orange Bookers.
Sounds more appealing to me, but apparently a maximum of 10% of the country agrees with me on that.
The problem is that many of those who would find the Orange Bookers appealing as defined by Robert are driven away by their Europhilia - which is very much at odds with the small state claims.
Agreed. I don't find much to disagree with the Orange Bookers as defined above, but presumably these folk still genuflect reflexively before the old religion of Brussels and are the clueless Muppets that wanted to take us into the Euro. That would've worked out well! A little bit more circumspection and perspective that Europe does not automatically equal good might nudge me. Butt hell will freeze first I suspect.
Perhaps if you actually spoke to some Orange Bookers rather than pontificating, you'd find we have a healthy scepticism for EU institutions and want them reformed.
You'd also find we gave a strong belief in meritocracy and are anti - corporatist / producer monopolist.
In scotland you have a clear split between all those who believe that independence will solve any kind of economic or social problem with north sea oil, and those who do not.
Those who do (45%), vote SNP regardless if they are conservative, liberal or lefty because they genuinely believe that all of their demands will be granted by the new scotish state even if those are conflicting demands.
Those who do not (55%), split in the traditional 3 parts but since scotland is more left leaning than normal, the lions share of that 55% goes to Labour, but realistically the 55% split in 3 will never beat the 45% who is united, you will have to reduce the 45% by either discouraging the SNP that it can succeed or starve it by removing the root of all this evil (North Sea Oil).
In short, all parties apart from the SNP are doomed in FPTP elections until either the SNP voters get bored and frustrated or you make scottish independence economically and politically unfeasible.
It's more complex than that. I voted Yes (despite not coming close to the belief you attribute to the 45%) and in this general election I will probably vote UKIP. The SNP's shift to the left is very offputting to me. If it kills off SLAB (atrocious troughers for the most part) I'll take it, but I can't bring myself to support it at the ballot box.
The SNP's move to left is what gives the Tories hope in Scotland. However since so many people have been brought up being told that the Conservatives are evil over the last 20 years, it could easily be another generation before the Blues are able to get back to winning 10+ seats in general elections. The brand is still just so toxic to so many.
By that point people will be out of the habit of considering the Tories as a viable option, so hard to stage a recovery. They'll be irrelevant history, surely, even if no longer toxic to anyone left alive.
@BBCAllegra: Newsnight understands Nigel Farage to do 1/2 hr elex i/v same night as big 3 Leaders do Dimbleby 8-9:30pm, Apr 30th. NF in QuestionTime slot
@BBCAllegra: Farage on at 10:30 in Eng & Wales; Leanne Wood gets QT slot in Wales and Sturgeon gets it in Scotland. To reflect where they are strong.
Look at it this way - if Scotland becomes independent, it'll be forced to confront financial reality with the loss of the Barnett formula / unpredictability of North Sea Oil revenues........and will shift rightward. That is one of the reasons why I support Scottish independence. The transition period would be messy, but Scotland can become a very successful country on its own once the Scottish enterprising spirit is rekindled.
Forget the polls, Jimmy Anderson has just become England's greatest ever test wicket bowler. Does this achievement not deserve at least a single mention?
To overtake Botham is an impressive record. After a bright few years there's not been much to cheer about recently in English cricket; Anderson however has been consistently good for a long time though. He deserves this achievement.
Still well short of other countries leading wicket takers and considering the amount of test match cricket England play, not to decry Jimmy's achievement.
Australia - Warne 708 wkts, Sri Lanka Murali 800, WI Courtney Walsh (521 from memory) puts 384 into context.
Indeed Anderson is no Warne or McGrath. Then again, Warne and McGrath had each other to back each other up, Anderson has gone through many periods where there is no pressure on the other end. Makes it much harder to take wickets if the batsmen can be safe on your bowling without pressure from the other bowlers.
I saw Warne get to 700 in Melbourne bowling Andrew Strauss who played all round a conventional leg-break.
Some would say the reverse - a lot of the great West Indies quicks of the 1980's denied any of them getting a mega haul - Holding (only) took 248 wkts for example, although they played a lot less tests by todays yardstick. I would say Murali was postively helped by the fact that Sri Lanka had Vaas who was useful but not great bowler, and nobody else really good in his 800 wicket haul.
Anderson achievement is notable when you consider how many games he was 12th man at the start of his career.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Because we're still proposing cuts to clean Brown's mess. Nobody likes having to go without things they want, Cameron is like a dietitian telling an obese nation that we can't have unlimited sweeties.
Honesty isn't popular.
The last thing Cameron looks like is a dietician. Isn't that one of the problems?
You think that Dr whatshername on C4 - the one who resembles a dominatrix in a white coat and who pokes around in icecream cups of fresh faeces while deriding the extruder - would be a better image for Mr Cameron to follow?
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
Quite. And people think that ukip are just gonna evanesce, like morning dew in May? Nah. Barring a Tory wake up, they are here to stay, like the Nats in Scotland. Indeed I think the success of the Nats north of the Border will embolden WWC English people to vote for a new, unlazy party that more truly represents their interests.
As above, so below.
The Tories can gain UKIP voters back. Or they can keep the metropolitan, professional classes on board.
They cannot do both.
We know from the "forced coalition" choice question that remaining Conservative voters split 60 LibDem, 40 UKIP.
This essentially means there are three voting blocks of about 33% each in the UK:
UKIP-Con LibCon Labour-SNP-Green
This is a completely false choice. Neither the metropolitan professional classes nor UKIP voters on their own will be enough for a winning coalition. If the Conservatives ever want to be a majority again they need to reach out to both groups. The argument they should only go for one or the other is the bane of the party. I generally only hear it from people that are extreme representatives of one of the groups, and driven more by hatred for the other group than their own policy preferences. We need to be a one nation party, and represent the right of centre voters from all backgrounds.
I think you are on to something here. How can you believe in a small state, accountable governance, localism and democracy while also supporting the European Union? The classical liberals of the 19th Century understood well that the only way liberal democracy would succeed would be if European borders were reshaped to represent the different nation groups. To have democracy you need a demos. That's why they supported breaking up the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires, while supporting the unification of Germany and Italy. The liberal democrats that profess to be their heirs seem to have completely forgotten this lesson.
It depends upon what kind of European Union exists. An EU superstate is incompatible.
An EU Free Market and Free Movement area is entirely agreeable with liberal beliefs in the power of the individual. If the individual is free to work, trade, move, holiday etc on the entire continent that's a good thing. So long as the EU is about breaking down barriers between nations that's good (and that's the kind of EU the Conservatives used to be the biggest supporters of and Labour the biggest opponents). The problem with the EU now is that instead of lowering international barriers, its about raising new ones. That is undemocratic.
@BBCAllegra: Newsnight understands Nigel Farage to do 1/2 hr elex i/v same night as big 3 Leaders do Dimbleby 8-9:30pm, Apr 30th. NF in QuestionTime slot
@BBCAllegra: Farage on at 10:30 in Eng & Wales; Leanne Wood gets QT slot in Wales and Sturgeon gets it in Scotland. To reflect where they are strong.
Sound's like the product of a committee, it probably took many yards of sellotape to piece together the paper of that deal.
@BBCAllegra: Newsnight understands Nigel Farage to do 1/2 hr elex i/v same night as big 3 Leaders do Dimbleby 8-9:30pm, Apr 30th. NF in QuestionTime slot
@BBCAllegra: Farage on at 10:30 in Eng & Wales; Leanne Wood gets QT slot in Wales and Sturgeon gets it in Scotland. To reflect where they are strong.
A rather good 48 hours for the Kippers. Amazed people this week were still talking about lib dems being good vale at 5/2 vs Ukip in the most votes market. Looks very wishful thinking.
In scotland you have a clear split between all those who believe that independence will solve any kind of economic or social problem with north sea oil, and those who do not.
Those who do (45%), vote SNP regardless if they are conservative, liberal or lefty because they genuinely believe that all of their demands will be granted by the new scotish state even if those are conflicting demands.
Those who do not (55%), split in the traditional 3 parts but since scotland is more left leaning than normal, the lions share of that 55% goes to Labour, but realistically the 55% split in 3 will never beat the 45% who is united, you will have to reduce the 45% by either discouraging the SNP that it can succeed or starve it by removing the root of all this evil (North Sea Oil).
In short, all parties apart from the SNP are doomed in FPTP elections until either the SNP voters get bored and frustrated or you make scottish independence economically and politically unfeasible.
It's more complex than that. I voted Yes (despite not coming close to the belief you attribute to the 45%) and in this general election I will probably vote UKIP. The SNP's shift to the left is very offputting to me. If it kills off SLAB (atrocious troughers for the most part) I'll take it, but I can't bring myself to support it at the ballot box.
The SNP's move to left is what gives the Tories hope in Scotland. However since so many people have been brought up being told that the Conservatives are evil over the last 20 years, it could easily be another generation before the Blues are able to get back to winning 10+ seats in general elections. The brand is still just so toxic to so many.
By that point people will be out of the habit of considering the Tories as a viable option, so hard to stage a recovery. They'll be irrelevant history, surely, even if no longer toxic to anyone left alive.
Since 97 the reaction of the electorate to any sign of Tory success in Scotland is hilarious. At any sign of revival, they know the priority is to smother it like roundup applied to ragwort. Don't be surprised if they lose Tweeddale etc this time and pop up somewhere else. It is political whack a mole.
I think you are on to something here. How can you believe in a small state, accountable governance, localism and democracy while also supporting the European Union? The classical liberals of the 19th Century understood well that the only way liberal democracy would succeed would be if European borders were reshaped to represent the different nation groups. To have democracy you need a demos. That's why they supported breaking up the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires, while supporting the unification of Germany and Italy. The liberal democrats that profess to be their heirs seem to have completely forgotten this lesson.
It depends upon what kind of European Union exists. An EU superstate is incompatible.
An EU Free Market and Free Movement area is entirely agreeable with liberal beliefs in the power of the individual. If the individual is free to work, trade, move, holiday etc on the entire continent that's a good thing. So long as the EU is about breaking down barriers between nations that's good (and that's the kind of EU the Conservatives used to be the biggest supporters of and Labour the biggest opponents). The problem with the EU now is that instead of lowering international barriers, its about raising new ones. That is undemocratic.
I agree. I meant more the European Union in its current incarnation. This is why the Orange Bookers should absolutely get on board with David Cameron's renegotiation process, and should believe in democracy enough to put it to the people in a free and fair referendum, without resorting to gerrymandering the electorate to include foreigners and children.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Both big parties have big strategic issues. Let's assume Ed is PM next month propped up by the SNP:-
The Tories wouldn't have won a majority in 28 years ( by 2020 ), would only have scored 33,37, and (35?) in the past three elections, would've failed to win outright and lost in consecutive elections to G Brown and E Milliband (ffs!) and would've cocked up the boundary changes that might've kept them in power. Longer term they have to find a way of appealing better to ethnic minorities. On the plus side I suspect a lot of Kippers might get buyers' remorse as it dawns on them their indulgence has landed them with Ed ( and the Tartan terror), and eventually the ( growing ) population weight in the South and East will get reflected in seats as the boundary commission slowly plods forward.
Labour: well for all of governing for 18 of 23 years from 1997, aside from 1997 and 2001, it's really down to quirks of the electoral system not popularity, having won 36,29, and (35?) in the past three elections ( so less than the Tories). They would've suffered a generational cataclysm in Scotland from which they may ( "may" note not "will") never fully recover for all of Ed being PM ( think the Liberals losing Ireland in the 1880's - 1906 notwithstanding they never quite recovered strategically). They will be caught between pandering to the Celtic fringe and trying not to piss off the English. Hard not to laugh as this will be the rewards of the absolute gerrymandered buggeration that was devolution introduced in 1997, (you can have a federal State or a centralised one - long term anything else is a dog's dinner). Nobody not called Blair has won a workable Labour majority since 1966 ( and he only won 36% in 2005!).
In short we need electoral reform, as we are too fragmented to keep the present system, and to keep a degree of legitimacy.
Totally agree about electoral reform. If Miliband became PM with SNP confidence and supply, I can't wait for the Tories and the Tory PB'ers on here to moan and whinge like mad at it all. And they'll only have themselves to blame for being the most passionate supporters of the union. I won't have any sympathy for them at all, will serve them right. Would be fun to see the absolute chaos such a government would produce, with the sovereign debt crisis starting in October, and the SNP able to cut Labour adrift at the most opportune time for them.
Don't know, but I suspect the old mantra 'in good times people come together, in bad times people split apart' holds for nations and Scotland will be only too glad to cut itself free from a UK ensnared in a sovereign debt crisis.
The UK government owes about £1.5 trillion.
However, more than £300bn is owed to the Bank of England, and no interest is paid on it. Do you think the UK government would go bankrupt over a debt owed to itself? Or do you think it would rolled over in perpetuity? In which case, can you even count it as government debt?
Which takes us down to £1.2 trillion.
In addition, the UK government borrowed to purchase the assets of Northern Rock, and Bradford and Bingley. As those assets roll off, it will naturally lower gross government debt.
Which rakes down to above £1.05 trillion.
Finally, RBS and Lloyds will be fully sold off. Now, you can pick your number for what this is worth, but (realistically) the numberis north of £50bn.
So, post winding down the interventions that took place in the GFC, and eliminating a debt that will never need to be repaid, government debt is perhaps £1 trillion.
So that's debt-to-GDP of, what, 60-65%?
And falling. Nominal GDP growth is north of 4% right now. And the government deficit is going to be around 4% this year. So, debt-to-GDP is probably falling.
Furthermore, Eurozone QE (which means there is negative net issuance in the Eurozone this year) must result in inflows into the UK.
Of course, there will be a sovereign debt crisis this year: but it'll be in Ecuador, Indonesia, and Venezuela. All of whom have borrowed in US Dollars and who are utterly dependent on commodity exports.
@BBCAllegra: Newsnight understands Nigel Farage to do 1/2 hr elex i/v same night as big 3 Leaders do Dimbleby 8-9:30pm, Apr 30th. NF in QuestionTime slot
@BBCAllegra: Farage on at 10:30 in Eng & Wales; Leanne Wood gets QT slot in Wales and Sturgeon gets it in Scotland. To reflect where they are strong.
This kind of stuff really does reflect how little politicians are actually interviewed for extended period these days, that this is actually news. I remember when it was a weekly occurrence to have a high profile politician getting a good 30+ minute grilling e.g Weekend World
In scotland you have a clear split between all those who believe that independence will solve any kind of economic or social problem with north sea oil, and those who do not.
Those who do (45%), vote SNP regardless if they are conservative, liberal or lefty because they genuinely believe that all of their demands will be granted by the new scotish state even if those are conflicting demands.
Those who do not (55%), split in the traditional 3 parts but since scotland is more left leaning than normal, the lions share of that 55% goes to Labour, but realistically the 55% split in 3 will never beat the 45% who is united, you will have to reduce the 45% by either discouraging the SNP that it can succeed or starve it by removing the root of all this evil (North Sea Oil).
In short, all parties apart from the SNP are doomed in FPTP elections until either the SNP voters get bored and frustrated or you make scottish independence economically and politically unfeasible.
It's more complex than that. I voted Yes (despite not coming close to the belief you attribute to the 45%) and in this general election I will probably vote UKIP. The SNP's shift to the left is very offputting to me. If it kills off SLAB (atrocious troughers for the most part) I'll take it, but I can't bring myself to support it at the ballot box.
The SNP's move to left is what gives the Tories hope in Scotland. However since so many people have been brought up being told that the Conservatives are evil over the last 20 years, it could easily be another generation before the Blues are able to get back to winning 10+ seats in general elections. The brand is still just so toxic to so many.
By that point people will be out of the habit of considering the Tories as a viable option, so hard to stage a recovery. They'll be irrelevant history, surely, even if no longer toxic to anyone left alive.
No there will still be the 15-20% who always vote Tory in Scotland. What I'm saying that it will take time before and 10-15% join them and they start making significant progress in terms of seats. Until then Scotland will move ever leftwards and further away from England politically with or without independence.
I'd welcome a chat, but they aren't wandering around my part of Cardiff with badges saying " I'm an Orange Booker talk to me".
To reiterate I didn't find much to disagree with and if you want Europe reformed - great. Seriously great. Trouble is I don't get anything from the Libs explaining this to me. During the Euros I got leaflets from the Libs stating three million jobs were at risk if we left- total bollocks. And I speak as someone with three decades experience in manufacturing exports whose job relies on our company's exports.
I think you are on to something here. How can you believe in a small state, accountable governance, localism and democracy while also supporting the European Union? The classical liberals of the 19th Century understood well that the only way liberal democracy would succeed would be if European borders were reshaped to represent the different nation groups. To have democracy you need a demos. That's why they supported breaking up the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires, while supporting the unification of Germany and Italy. The liberal democrats that profess to be their heirs seem to have completely forgotten this lesson.
It depends upon what kind of European Union exists. An EU superstate is incompatible.
An EU Free Market and Free Movement area is entirely agreeable with liberal beliefs in the power of the individual. If the individual is free to work, trade, move, holiday etc on the entire continent that's a good thing. So long as the EU is about breaking down barriers between nations that's good (and that's the kind of EU the Conservatives used to be the biggest supporters of and Labour the biggest opponents). The problem with the EU now is that instead of lowering international barriers, its about raising new ones. That is undemocratic.
I agree. I meant more the European Union in its current incarnation. This is why the Orange Bookers should absolutely get on board with David Cameron's renegotiation process, and should believe in democracy enough to put it to the people in a free and fair referendum, without resorting to gerrymandering the electorate to include foreigners and children.
Not forgetting it was the Orange Bookers who actually first called for an In/Out referendum. It was a Lib Dem manifesto policy last time until Cameron came around to calling for it at which point it was dropped so fast you'd think it was a policy on tuition fees.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Because we're still proposing cuts to clean Brown's mess. Nobody likes having to go without things they want, Cameron is like a dietitian telling an obese nation that we can't have unlimited sweeties.
Honesty isn't popular.
The last thing Cameron looks like is a dietician. Isn't that one of the problems?
You think that Dr whatshername on C4 - the one who resembles a dominatrix in a white coat and who pokes around in icecream cups of fresh faeces while deriding the extruder - would be a better image for Mr Cameron to follow?
If Cameron wants to persuade the electorate it has to take some pain, it might look better if he looked like he shared of it himself. That's where people like Major and Thatcher had a bit more common touch.
I know the LDs are trying to say they are neither left or right leaning, in effect, but is that possibly true? I find it hard to square with my mental picture of them.
There are at least two different LD parties (and possibly three):
1. There are the Orange Bookers, who are a bunch of socially liberal, economically free market, metropolitans. They are in favour of gay marriage, legalising drugs, and the free movement of goods and services. By and large, they are fairly small state, and if there is a difference with the historic conservative party it is on the subject of law and order.
2. There are the sandal wearing liberals, who are economically left wing and awkward; they are descendents of the dissenters (and the quakers and the unitarians), and would like to be in the Labour Party but loathe its links to the unions.
3. There is the (diminished) Social Democratic element, who came from the Labour Party, and feel that what the UK needs is a good continental style social democrat party.
1 is represented by David Laws and Danny Alexander; 2 by Tim Farron and Sarah Teather; and 3 by Vince Cable.
What - historically - united 1 and 2 was a strong belief in the primacy of the individual, as regards sodomy, civil rights, divorce, and the like.
During the 2010 to 2015 period, almost all the 3s have left, and so have a lot of 2s. What remains is a lot of Orange Bookers.
Sounds more appealing to me, but apparently a maximum of 10% of the country agrees with me on that.
The problem is that many of those who would find the Orange Bookers appealing as defined by Robert are driven away by their Europhilia - which is very much at odds with the small state claims.
Agreed. I don't find much to disagree with the Orange Bookers as defined above, but presumably these folk still genuflect reflexively before the old religion of Brussels and are the clueless Muppets that wanted to take us into the Euro. That would've worked out well! A little bit more circumspection and perspective that Europe does not automatically equal good might nudge me. Butt hell will freeze first I suspect.
Perhaps if you actually spoke to some Orange Bookers rather than pontificating, you'd find we have a healthy scepticism for EU institutions and want them reformed.
You'd also find we gave a strong belief in meritocracy and are anti - corporatist / producer monopolist.
Unfortunately you have not yet realised - even after 40 years -that it cannot be reformed in the way you want. It's whole purpose was ever closer union and that remains a core principle.
Don't know, but I suspect the old mantra 'in good times people come together, in bad times people split apart' holds for nations and Scotland will be only too glad to cut itself free from a UK ensnared in a sovereign debt crisis.
The UK government owes about £1.5 trillion.
However, more than £300bn is owed to the Bank of England, and no interest is paid on it. Do you think the UK government would go bankrupt over a debt owed to itself? Or do you think it would rolled over in perpetuity? In which case, can you even count it as government debt?
Which takes us down to £1.2 trillion.
In addition, the UK government borrowed to purchase the assets of Northern Rock, and Bradford and Bingley. As those assets roll off, it will naturally lower gross government debt.
Which rakes down to above £1.05 trillion.
Finally, RBS and Lloyds will be fully sold off. Now, you can pick your number for what this is worth, but (realistically) the numberis north of £50bn.
So, post winding down the interventions that took place in the GFC, and eliminating a debt that will never need to be repaid, government debt is perhaps £1 trillion.
So that's debt-to-GDP of, what, 60-65%?
And falling. Nominal GDP growth is north of 4% right now. And the government deficit is going to be around 4% this year. So, debt-to-GDP is probably falling.
Furthermore, Eurozone QE (which means there is negative net issuance in the Eurozone this year) must result in inflows into the UK.
Of course, there will be a sovereign debt crisis this year: but it'll be in Ecuador, Indonesia, and Venezuela. All of whom have borrowed in US Dollars and who are utterly dependent on commodity exports.
Firstly, you're ignoring all the off balance sheet liabilities - public sector pensions, nuclear power decommissioning, network rail debt, NHS PFI contracts etc. Then you're ignoring the demographics which are horrible for every country in the west over the next 30 years or so. And lastly, you're counting on interest rates remaining on the floor at CURRENT levels. Like a lot of other things, this is a game of CONFIDENCE. Interest rate cycles last around 31-34 years. Its 34 years since the cycle topped out in 1981. RISING interest rates and the CONTAGION effect from renewed trouble in the eurozone periphery will soon cast a rather dark shadow on the situation of UK plc once we get into October and beyond.
I'd welcome a chat, but they aren't wandering around my part of Cardiff with badges saying " I'm an Orange Booker talk to me".
To reiterate I didn't find much to disagree with and if you want Europe reformed - great. Seriously great. Trouble is I don't get anything from the Libs explaining this to me. During the Euros I got leaflets from the Libs stating three million jobs were at risk if we left- total bollocks. And I speak as someone with three decades experience in manufacturing exports whose job relies on our company's exports.
That's because, contrary to what they would have you believe, the sandalistas hold sway on some areas and we are viewed as entryists as a result. PM me if you want an alternative view.
Odds on the SNP in Berwickshire Roxburgh and Selkirk look value to me
Ashcroft implies their vote is 30% max there. Any (net) Unionist collusion between the Lib Dems and the Tories would be enough to see off the SNP here. And Lamont has been working the seat like mad here. So I'm still on the Tories (just) here.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Because we're still proposing cuts to clean Brown's mess. Nobody likes having to go without things they want, Cameron is like a dietitian telling an obese nation that we can't have unlimited sweeties.
Honesty isn't popular.
The last thing Cameron looks like is a dietician. Isn't that one of the problems?
You think that Dr whatshername on C4 - the one who resembles a dominatrix in a white coat and who pokes around in icecream cups of fresh faeces while deriding the extruder - would be a better image for Mr Cameron to follow?
If Cameron wants to persuade the electorate it has to take some pain, it might look better if he looked like he shared of it himself. That's where people like Major and Thatcher had a bit more common touch.
Cameron can't do anything about his appearance - and the polls (and elections) consistently show he is a boost to the party not a drag.
Thatcher fought against an unreconstructed socialist party in the dying days of the Soviet era. Cameron is fighting against a spendaholic opposition in an era when people act like spendaholics.
Don't know, but I suspect the old mantra 'in good times people come together, in bad times people split apart' holds for nations and Scotland will be only too glad to cut itself free from a UK ensnared in a sovereign debt crisis.
The UK government owes about £1.5 trillion.
However, more than £300bn is owed to the Bank of England, and no interest is paid on it. Do you think the UK government would go bankrupt over a debt owed to itself? Or do you think it would rolled over in perpetuity? In which case, can you even count it as government debt?
Which takes us down to £1.2 trillion.
In addition, the UK government borrowed to purchase the assets of Northern Rock, and Bradford and Bingley. As those assets roll off, it will naturally lower gross government debt.
Which rakes down to above £1.05 trillion.
Finally, RBS and Lloyds will be fully sold off. Now, you can pick your number for what this is worth, but (realistically) the numberis north of £50bn.
So, post winding down the interventions that took place in the GFC, and eliminating a debt that will never need to be repaid, government debt is perhaps £1 trillion.
So that's debt-to-GDP of, what, 60-65%?
And falling. Nominal GDP growth is north of 4% right now. And the government deficit is going to be around 4% this year. So, debt-to-GDP is probably falling.
Furthermore, Eurozone QE (which means there is negative net issuance in the Eurozone this year) must result in inflows into the UK.
Of course, there will be a sovereign debt crisis this year: but it'll be in Ecuador, Indonesia, and Venezuela. All of whom have borrowed in US Dollars and who are utterly dependent on commodity exports.
Firstly, you're ignoring all the off balance sheet liabilities - public sector pensions, nuclear power decommissioning, network rail debt, NHS PFI contracts etc. Then you're ignoring the demographics which are horrible for every country in the west over the next 30 years or so. And lastly, you're counting on interest rates remaining on the floor at CURRENT levels. Like a lot of other things, this is a game of CONFIDENCE. Interest rate cycles last around 31-34 years. Its 34 years since the cycle topped out in 1981. RISING interest rates and the CONTAGION effect from renewed trouble in the eurozone periphery will soon cast a rather dark shadow on the situation of UK plc once we get into October and beyond.
Aren't Network Rail's debts on the books now? Or has the change not trickled through to the books yet?
Don't know, but I suspect the old mantra 'in good times people come together, in bad times people split apart' holds for nations and Scotland will be only too glad to cut itself free from a UK ensnared in a sovereign debt crisis.
The UK government owes about £1.5 trillion.
However, more than £300bn is owed to the Bank of England, and no interest is paid on it. Do you think the UK government would go bankrupt over a debt owed to itself? Or do you think it would rolled over in perpetuity? In which case, can you even count it as government debt?
Which takes us down to £1.2 trillion.
In addition, the UK government borrowed to purchase the assets of Northern Rock, and Bradford and Bingley. As those assets roll off, it will naturally lower gross government debt.
Which rakes down to above £1.05 trillion.
Finally, RBS and Lloyds will be fully sold off. Now, you can pick your number for what this is worth, but (realistically) the numberis north of £50bn.
So, post winding down the interventions that took place in the GFC, and eliminating a debt that will never need to be repaid, government debt is perhaps £1 trillion.
So that's debt-to-GDP of, what, 60-65%?
And falling. Nominal GDP growth is north of 4% right now. And the government deficit is going to be around 4% this year. So, debt-to-GDP is probably falling.
Furthermore, Eurozone QE (which means there is negative net issuance in the Eurozone this year) must result in inflows into the UK.
Of course, there will be a sovereign debt crisis this year: but it'll be in Ecuador, Indonesia, and Venezuela. All of whom have borrowed in US Dollars and who are utterly dependent on commodity exports.
In return we own chunks of other countries debt. Scots MPs were responsible for massive overspending and adding to our debt. Voting SNP for a SNP/Lab govt would not change that in the future.
I'd welcome a chat, but they aren't wandering around my part of Cardiff with badges saying " I'm an Orange Booker talk to me".
To reiterate I didn't find much to disagree with and if you want Europe reformed - great. Seriously great. Trouble is I don't get anything from the Libs explaining this to me. During the Euros I got leaflets from the Libs stating three million jobs were at risk if we left- total bollocks. And I speak as someone with three decades experience in manufacturing exports whose job relies on our company's exports.
That's because, contrary to what they would have you believe, the sandalistas hold sway on some areas and we are viewed as entryists as a result. PM me if you want an alternative view.
Embarrassingly I have no idea how to pm ( bit like Ed ha!). But seriously I'd welcome the dialogue.
I'd welcome a chat, but they aren't wandering around my part of Cardiff with badges saying " I'm an Orange Booker talk to me".
To reiterate I didn't find much to disagree with and if you want Europe reformed - great. Seriously great. Trouble is I don't get anything from the Libs explaining this to me. During the Euros I got leaflets from the Libs stating three million jobs were at risk if we left- total bollocks. And I speak as someone with three decades experience in manufacturing exports whose job relies on our company's exports.
That's because, contrary to what they would have you believe, the sandalistas hold sway on some areas and we are viewed as entryists as a result. PM me if you want an alternative view.
Embarrassingly I have no idea how to pm...
I will be seriously disappointed if in the time it takes me to write this someone has not chimed in with 'Neither does Ed/Dave!" Let's see.
Interesting points about the north west earlier. I'm somewhat sceptical of Labour doing as well there as the polling seems to imply, although Ashcroft had them behind in Chester IIRC.
Here's my latest list for changes in the NW:
Labour gains from Tory
Bury N Carlisle Lancaster & Fleetwood Morecambe & Lunesdale (Tory vote used to be around 70% in the 1950's here!) Warrington S Weaver Vale Wirral W (can't stand Esther McVey myself)
(Tories hang on in South Ribble, Chester and Crewe & Nantwich)
Labour gains from Lib Dem
Burnley Manchester Withington
Lib Dems hold Southport, Cheadle and Hazel Grove - Tory candidate weak in Cheadle from what I read.
Perhaps if you actually spoke to some Orange Bookers rather than pontificating, you'd find we have a healthy scepticism for EU institutions and want them reformed.
You'd also find we gave a strong belief in meritocracy and are anti - corporatist / producer monopolist.
Unfortunately you have not yet realised - even after 40 years -that it cannot be reformed in the way you want. It's whole purpose was ever closer union and that remains a core principle.
Quite rightly too. Ever closer union didn't mean ever increasing integration, it meant a union of people (in 1957) closer than the way Europe had acted in previous decades.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Because we're still proposing cuts to clean Brown's mess. Nobody likes having to go without things they want, Cameron is like a dietitian telling an obese nation that we can't have unlimited sweeties.
Honesty isn't popular.
The last thing Cameron looks like is a dietician. Isn't that one of the problems?
You think that Dr whatshername on C4 - the one who resembles a dominatrix in a white coat and who pokes around in icecream cups of fresh faeces while deriding the extruder - would be a better image for Mr Cameron to follow?
If Cameron wants to persuade the electorate it has to take some pain, it might look better if he looked like he shared of it himself. That's where people like Major and Thatcher had a bit more common touch.
Cameron can't do anything about his appearance - and the polls (and elections) consistently show he is a boost to the party not a drag.
Thatcher fought against an unreconstructed socialist party in the dying days of the Soviet era. Cameron is fighting against a spendaholic opposition in an era when people act like spendaholics.
It's not clear that Mr Cameron is an asset for the Conservatives.
"One could be forgiven for assuming that David Cameron is therefore an asset for his party. However, less than 30% of respondents tend to opt for David Cameron in ‘best prime minister’ questions (lower than average Conservative vote intention), and ratings of Cameron on YouGov’s ‘doing well or badly’ leadership question are consistently net negative (and have been since 2010).
This is borne out in BES questions on leadership as well. On a BES dislike-like scale, where 0 = strongly dislike and 10 = strongly like, David Cameron’s mean score is 4.0, Ed Miliband’s is 3.7, Nick Clegg’s is 3.3 and Nigel Farage’s is 3.1. We should be cautious before concluding that David Cameron has an unequivocal leadership advantage."
I'd welcome a chat, but they aren't wandering around my part of Cardiff with badges saying " I'm an Orange Booker talk to me".
To reiterate I didn't find much to disagree with and if you want Europe reformed - great. Seriously great. Trouble is I don't get anything from the Libs explaining this to me. During the Euros I got leaflets from the Libs stating three million jobs were at risk if we left- total bollocks. And I speak as someone with three decades experience in manufacturing exports whose job relies on our company's exports.
That's because, contrary to what they would have you believe, the sandalistas hold sway on some areas and we are viewed as entryists as a result. PM me if you want an alternative view.
Embarrassingly I have no idea how to pm ( bit like Ed ha!). But seriously I'd welcome the dialogue.
Don't know, but I suspect the old mantra 'in good times people come together, in bad times people split apart' holds for nations and Scotland will be only too glad to cut itself free from a UK ensnared in a sovereign debt crisis.
The UK government owes about £1.5 trillion.
However, more than £300bn is owed to the Bank of England, and no interest is paid on it. Do you think the UK government would go bankrupt over a debt owed to itself? Or do you think it would rolled over in perpetuity? In which case, can you even count it as government debt?
Which takes us down to £1.2 trillion.
In addition, the UK government borrowed to purchase the assets of Northern Rock, and Bradford and Bingley. As those assets roll off, it will naturally lower gross government debt.
Which rakes down to above £1.05 trillion.
Finally, RBS and Lloyds will be fully sold off. Now, you can pick your number for what this is worth, but (realistically) the numberis north of £50bn.
So, post winding down the interventions that took place in the GFC, and eliminating a debt that will never need to be repaid, government debt is perhaps £1 trillion.
So that's debt-to-GDP of, what, 60-65%?
And falling. Nominal GDP growth is north of 4% right now. And the government deficit is going to be around 4% this year. So, debt-to-GDP is probably falling.
Furthermore, Eurozone QE (which means there is negative net issuance in the Eurozone this year) must result in inflows into the UK.
Of course, there will be a sovereign debt crisis this year: but it'll be in Ecuador, Indonesia, and Venezuela. All of whom have borrowed in US Dollars and who are utterly dependent on commodity exports.
Firstly, you're ignoring all the off balance sheet liabilities - public sector pensions, nuclear power decommissioning, network rail debt, NHS PFI contracts etc. Then you're ignoring the demographics which are horrible for every country in the west over the next 30 years or so. And lastly, you're counting on interest rates remaining on the floor at CURRENT levels. Like a lot of other things, this is a game of CONFIDENCE. Interest rate cycles last around 31-34 years. Its 34 years since the cycle topped out in 1981. RISING interest rates and the CONTAGION effect from renewed trouble in the eurozone periphery will soon cast a rather dark shadow on the situation of UK plc once we get into October and beyond.
The UK's demographics are healthy. 1.9 children born/woman is a very healthy ratio compared to the horrible rates in many other nations.
We'll have to tighten our belt to adjust to an ever-growing retired population, made worse by Brown raiding pensions - but that will be quite achievable compared to having to tighten our belt to deal with Brown's out of control spending.
UKIP holding up ok in this one I note, even as the LDs remain rooted to the mid to late single digits. Course for both of them its about clustering what little vote share they have in a few areas, even more than for the big two, but the higher the share the better a chance of managing that in more places. UKIP 3-4?
UKIP on 18.5% in England - take away London and we're looking at an AVERAGE of 20% surely?
Quite. And people think that ukip are just gonna evanesce, like morning dew in May? Nah. Barring a Tory wake up, they are here to stay, like the Nats in Scotland. Indeed I think the success of the Nats north of the Border will embolden WWC English people to vote for a new, unlazy party that more truly represents their interests.
As above, so below.
The Tories can gain UKIP voters back. Or they can keep the metropolitan, professional classes on board.
They cannot do both.
We know from the "forced coalition" choice question that remaining Conservative voters split 60 LibDem, 40 UKIP.
This essentially means there are three voting blocks of about 33% each in the UK:
UKIP-Con LibCon Labour-SNP-Green
I agree with that, and the Conservatives have made their strategic choice. They'd like as much support as possible from UKIP/Con, but they'd prefer Lib Con, and think that's the future.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Seems nice and simple. But a successful UK Conservative leader (like those in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA) would be able to pull in 40%+ of the vote.
If you can't ride two horses at once, you shouldn't be in the circus.
So there’s a very strong chance indeed that a Labour government would depend on the SNP. The remaining question then becomes this: would it be the Scottish Nationalists’ wish to help the British Labour party make a success of running a UK government in London? I think we know the answer. It’s a no, I’m afraid, Nicola.
Her plan is as simple as it is deadly: to run a minority Labour government ragged, kick it around, wreck its authority — but refuse to let it die. This would be politics as we haven’t seen it before in Britain: the politics of sadism.
Labour are facing near wipe out in Scotland. We have one of the fastest growing major economies. We have record unemployment and record low jobseekers claimant rate. The PM outperforms his party whereas Ed Miliband trails behind his. And it is notoriously difficult to kick out a government after just one term.
AND YET, David Cameron STILL can't seal the deal?
Because we're still proposing cuts to clean Brown's mess. Nobody likes having to go without things they want, Cameron is like a dietitian telling an obese nation that we can't have unlimited sweeties.
Honesty isn't popular.
The last thing Cameron looks like is a dietician. Isn't that one of the problems?
You think that Dr whatshername on C4 - the one who resembles a dominatrix in a white coat and who pokes around in icecream cups of fresh faeces while deriding the extruder - would be a better image for Mr Cameron to follow?
If Cameron wants to persuade the electorate it has to take some pain, it might look better if he looked like he shared of it himself. That's where people like Major and Thatcher had a bit more common touch.
Cameron can't do anything about his appearance - and the polls (and elections) consistently show he is a boost to the party not a drag.
Thatcher fought against an unreconstructed socialist party in the dying days of the Soviet era. Cameron is fighting against a spendaholic opposition in an era when people act like spendaholics.
It's not clear that Mr Cameron is an asset for the Conservatives.
"One could be forgiven for assuming that David Cameron is therefore an asset for his party. However, less than 30% of respondents tend to opt for David Cameron in ‘best prime minister’ questions (lower than average Conservative vote intention), and ratings of Cameron on YouGov’s ‘doing well or badly’ leadership question are consistently net negative (and have been since 2010).
This is borne out in BES questions on leadership as well. On a BES dislike-like scale, where 0 = strongly dislike and 10 = strongly like, David Cameron’s mean score is 4.0, Ed Miliband’s is 3.7, Nick Clegg’s is 3.3 and Nigel Farage’s is 3.1. We should be cautious before concluding that David Cameron has an unequivocal leadership advantage."
In general any serving PM implementing austerity will have a negative rating, the fact that he's still out-performing opposition leaders is a tremendous achievement.
I know the LDs are trying to say they are neither left or right leaning, in effect, but is that possibly true? I find it hard to square with my mental picture of them.
There are at least two different LD parties (and possibly three):
1. There are the Orange Bookers, who are a bunch of socially liberal, economically free market, metropolitans. They are in favour of gay marriage, legalising drugs, and the free movement of goods and services. By and large, they are fairly small state, and if there is a difference with the historic conservative party it is on the subject of law and order.
2. There are the sandal wearing liberals, who are economically left wing and awkward; they are descendents of the dissenters (and the quakers and the unitarians), and would like to be in the Labour Party but loathe its links to the unions.
3. There is the (diminished) Social Democratic element, who came from the Labour Party, and feel that what the UK needs is a good continental style social democrat party.
1 is represented by David Laws and Danny Alexander; 2 by Tim Farron and Sarah Teather; and 3 by Vince Cable.
What - historically - united 1 and 2 was a strong belief in the primacy of the individual, as regards sodomy, civil rights, divorce, and the like.
During the 2010 to 2015 period, almost all the 3s have left, and so have a lot of 2s. What remains is a lot of Orange Bookers.
Very good summary. I'd say the key differences on (1) are on europe and immigration.
I'm quite liberal on law and order - I believe in drugs liberalisation and prison reform, whilst being anti-capital punishment, for example - but am absolutely not a LD.
@BBCAllegra: Newsnight understands Nigel Farage to do 1/2 hr elex i/v same night as big 3 Leaders do Dimbleby 8-9:30pm, Apr 30th. NF in QuestionTime slot
@BBCAllegra: Farage on at 10:30 in Eng & Wales; Leanne Wood gets QT slot in Wales and Sturgeon gets it in Scotland. To reflect where they are strong.
Maybe the BBC should use Survation for selecting the QT audiences this time.
Don't know, but I suspect the old mantra 'in good times people come together, in bad times people split apart' holds for nations and Scotland will be only too glad to cut itself free from a UK ensnared in a sovereign debt crisis.
...
...
Of course, there will be a sovereign debt crisis this year: but it'll be in Ecuador, Indonesia, and Venezuela. All of whom have borrowed in US Dollars and who are utterly dependent on commodity exports.
Firstly, you're ignoring all the off balance sheet liabilities - public sector pensions, nuclear power decommissioning, network rail debt, NHS PFI contracts etc. Then you're ignoring the demographics which are horrible for every country in the west over the next 30 years or so. And lastly, you're counting on interest rates remaining on the floor at CURRENT levels. Like a lot of other things, this is a game of CONFIDENCE. Interest rate cycles last around 31-34 years. Its 34 years since the cycle topped out in 1981. RISING interest rates and the CONTAGION effect from renewed trouble in the eurozone periphery will soon cast a rather dark shadow on the situation of UK plc once we get into October and beyond.
The UK's demographics are healthy. 1.9 children born/woman is a very healthy ratio compared to the horrible rates in many other nations.
We'll have to tighten our belt to adjust to an ever-growing retired population, made worse by Brown raiding pensions - but that will be quite achievable compared to having to tighten our belt to deal with Brown's out of control spending.
Fair comments. future pensions are not debt. Much of PFI payments are running costs
In general any serving PM implementing austerity will have a negative rating, the fact that he's still out-performing opposition leaders is a tremendous achievement.
I know the LDs are trying to say they are neither left or right leaning, in effect, but is that possibly true? I find it hard to square with my mental picture of them.
There are at least two different LD parties (and possibly three):
1. There are the Orange Bookers, who are a bunch of socially liberal, economically free market, metropolitans. They are in favour of gay marriage, legalising drugs, and the free movement of goods and services. By and large, they are fairly small state, and if there is a difference with the historic conservative party it is on the subject of law and order.
2. There are the sandal wearing liberals, who are economically left wing and awkward; they are descendents of the dissenters (and the quakers and the unitarians), and would like to be in the Labour Party but loathe its links to the unions.
3. There is the (diminished) Social Democratic element, who came from the Labour Party, and feel that what the UK needs is a good continental style social democrat party.
1 is represented by David Laws and Danny Alexander; 2 by Tim Farron and Sarah Teather; and 3 by Vince Cable.
What - historically - united 1 and 2 was a strong belief in the primacy of the individual, as regards sodomy, civil rights, divorce, and the like.
During the 2010 to 2015 period, almost all the 3s have left, and so have a lot of 2s. What remains is a lot of Orange Bookers.
Very good summary. I'd say the key differences on (1) are on europe and immigration.
I'm quite liberal on law and order - I believe in drugs liberalisation and prison reform, whilst being anti-capital punishment, for example - but am absolutely not a LD.
So there’s a very strong chance indeed that a Labour government would depend on the SNP. The remaining question then becomes this: would it be the Scottish Nationalists’ wish to help the British Labour party make a success of running a UK government in London? I think we know the answer. It’s a no, I’m afraid, Nicola.
Her plan is as simple as it is deadly: to run a minority Labour government ragged, kick it around, wreck its authority — but refuse to let it die. This would be politics as we haven’t seen it before in Britain: the politics of sadism.
Interesting points about the north west earlier. I'm somewhat sceptical of Labour doing as well there as the polling seems to imply, although Ashcroft had them behind in Chester IIRC.
Here's my latest list for changes in the NW:
Labour gains from Tory
Bury N Carlisle Lancaster & Fleetwood Morecambe & Lunesdale (Tory vote used to be around 70% in the 1950's here!) Warrington S Weaver Vale Wirral W (can't stand Esther McVey myself)
(Tories hang on in South Ribble, Chester and Crewe & Nantwich)
Labour gains from Lib Dem
Burnley Manchester Withington
Lib Dems hold Southport, Cheadle and Hazel Grove - Tory candidate weak in Cheadle from what I read.
Agree with most of that except I'd put Chester as a Labour gain and Morecambe as a narrow Tory hold.
I know the LDs are trying to say they are neither left or right leaning, in effect, but is that possibly true? I find it hard to square with my mental picture of them.
There are at least two different LD parties (and possibly three):
1. There are the Orange Bookers, who are a bunch of socially liberal, economically free market, metropolitans. They are in favour of gay marriage, legalising drugs, and the free movement of goods and services. By and large, they are fairly small state, and if there is a difference with the historic conservative party it is on the subject of law and order.
2. There are the sandal wearing liberals, who are economically left wing and awkward; they are descendents of the dissenters (and the quakers and the unitarians), and would like to be in the Labour Party but loathe its links to the unions.
3. There is the (diminished) Social Democratic element, who came from the Labour Party, and feel that what the UK needs is a good continental style social democrat party.
1 is represented by David Laws and Danny Alexander; 2 by Tim Farron and Sarah Teather; and 3 by Vince Cable.
What - historically - united 1 and 2 was a strong belief in the primacy of the individual, as regards sodomy, civil rights, divorce, and the like.
During the 2010 to 2015 period, almost all the 3s have left, and so have a lot of 2s. What remains is a lot of Orange Bookers.
Very good summary. I'd say the key differences on (1) are on europe and immigration.
I'm quite liberal on law and order - I believe in drugs liberalisation and prison reform, whilst being anti-capital punishment, for example - but am absolutely not a LD.
I don't know the future of the post-2015 Lib Dems. I'd be worried that it would be dragged left again.
I've been very happy with the current coalition, although I don't know whether that (as a Tory) is because of the Lib Dems' influence or just whether the government would have been more centrist than its manifesto anyway.
Don't know, but I suspect the old mantra 'in good times people come together, in bad times people split apart' holds for nations and Scotland will be only too glad to cut itself free from a UK ensnared in a sovereign debt crisis.
...
...
Of course, there will be a sovereign debt crisis this year: but it'll be in Ecuador, Indonesia, and Venezuela. All of whom have borrowed in US Dollars and who are utterly dependent on commodity exports.
Firstly, you're ignoring all the off balance sheet liabilities - public sector pensions, nuclear power decommissioning, network rail debt, NHS PFI contracts etc. Then you're ignoring the demographics which are horrible for every country in the west over the next 30 years or so. And lastly, you're counting on interest rates remaining on the floor at CURRENT levels. Like a lot of other things, this is a game of CONFIDENCE. Interest rate cycles last around 31-34 years. Its 34 years since the cycle topped out in 1981. RISING interest rates and the CONTAGION effect from renewed trouble in the eurozone periphery will soon cast a rather dark shadow on the situation of UK plc once we get into October and beyond.
The UK's demographics are healthy. 1.9 children born/woman is a very healthy ratio compared to the horrible rates in many other nations.
We'll have to tighten our belt to adjust to an ever-growing retired population, made worse by Brown raiding pensions - but that will be quite achievable compared to having to tighten our belt to deal with Brown's out of control spending.
Fair comments. future pensions are not debt. Much of PFI payments are running costs
Indeed. The great crime that Brown should have to answer for (but won't) is the opportunity squandered. Late 90's it was well known demographic changes were coming, which sensible changes could have dealt with. We also had one of the strongest pension systems, falling debt:GDP ratio and even a surplus.
The pensions were raided, the surplus became ballooning debt and nothing was done about the demographics making it ever harder to deal with. Not just terribly irresponsible can kicking on every difficult decision, but actually making them all worse.
@BBCAllegra: Newsnight understands Nigel Farage to do 1/2 hr elex i/v same night as big 3 Leaders do Dimbleby 8-9:30pm, Apr 30th. NF in QuestionTime slot
@BBCAllegra: Farage on at 10:30 in Eng & Wales; Leanne Wood gets QT slot in Wales and Sturgeon gets it in Scotland. To reflect where they are strong.
Forget the polls, Jimmy Anderson has just become England's greatest ever test wicket bowler. Does this achievement not deserve at least a single mention?
To overtake Botham is an impressive record. After a bright few years there's not been much to cheer about recently in English cricket; Anderson however has been consistently good for a long time though. He deserves this achievement.
Still well short of other countries leading wicket takers and considering the amount of test match cricket England play, not to decry Jimmy's achievement.
Australia - Warne 708 wkts, Sri Lanka Murali 800, WI Courtney Walsh (521 from memory) puts 384 into context.
The first two are the world's greatest ever spin bowlers, lolloping in off three paces.
Walsh, with Ambrose, was the last of that extended generation of Windies quicks the like of which we will never see again.
Don't know, but I suspect the old mantra 'in good times people come together, in bad times people split apart' holds for nations and Scotland will be only too glad to cut itself free from a UK ensnared in a sovereign debt crisis.
...
...
Of course, there will be a sovereign debt crisis this year: but it'll be in Ecuador, Indonesia, and Venezuela. All of whom have borrowed in US Dollars and who are utterly dependent on commodity exports.
Firstly, you're ignoring all the off balance sheet liabilities - public sector pensions, nuclear power decommissioning, network rail debt, NHS PFI contracts etc. Then you're ignoring the demographics which are horrible for every country in the west over the next 30 years or so. And lastly, you're counting on interest rates remaining on the floor at CURRENT levels. Like a lot of other things, this is a game of CONFIDENCE. Interest rate cycles last around 31-34 years. Its 34 years since the cycle topped out in 1981. RISING interest rates and the CONTAGION effect from renewed trouble in the eurozone periphery will soon cast a rather dark shadow on the situation of UK plc once we get into October and beyond.
The UK's demographics are healthy. 1.9 children born/woman is a very healthy ratio compared to the horrible rates in many other nations.
We'll have to tighten our belt to adjust to an ever-growing retired population, made worse by Brown raiding pensions - but that will be quite achievable compared to having to tighten our belt to deal with Brown's out of control spending.
Fair comments. future pensions are not debt. Much of PFI payments are running costs
Indeed. The great crime that Brown should have to answer for (but won't) is the opportunity squandered. Late 90's it was well known demographic changes were coming, which sensible changes could have dealt with. We also had one of the strongest pension systems, falling debt:GDP ratio and even a surplus.
The pensions were raided, the surplus became ballooning debt and nothing was done about the demographics making it ever harder to deal with. Not just terribly irresponsible can kicking on every difficult decision, but actually making them all worse.
Absolutely right. Of all the heinous muppetry that Brown is responsible for the financial Stalingrad of pensions destruction he left behind is the worst. An horrendously festering legacy whose full horror will only slowly be revealed in the coming decades.
I know the LDs are trying to say they are neither left or right leaning, in effect, but is that possibly true? I find it hard to square with my mental picture of them.
There are at least two different LD parties (and possibly three):
1. There are the Orange Bookers, who are a bunch of socially liberal, economically free market, metropolitans. They are in favour of gay marriage, legalising drugs, and the free movement of goods and services. By and large, they are fairly small state, and if there is a difference with the historic conservative party it is on the subject of law and order.
2. There are the sandal wearing liberals, who are economically left wing and awkward; they are descendents of the dissenters (and the quakers and the unitarians), and would like to be in the Labour Party but loathe its links to the unions.
3. There is the (diminished) Social Democratic element, who came from the Labour Party, and feel that what the UK needs is a good continental style social democrat party.
1 is represented by David Laws and Danny Alexander; 2 by Tim Farron and Sarah Teather; and 3 by Vince Cable.
What - historically - united 1 and 2 was a strong belief in the primacy of the individual, as regards sodomy, civil rights, divorce, and the like.
During the 2010 to 2015 period, almost all the 3s have left, and so have a lot of 2s. What remains is a lot of Orange Bookers.
Very good summary. I'd say the key differences on (1) are on europe and immigration.
I'm quite liberal on law and order - I believe in drugs liberalisation and prison reform, whilst being anti-capital punishment, for example - but am absolutely not a LD.
I don't know the future of the post-2015 Lib Dems. I'd be worried that it would be dragged left again.
I've been very happy with the current coalition, although I don't know whether that (as a Tory) is because of the Lib Dems' influence or just whether the government would have been more centrist than its manifesto anyway.
I think it's fair to say that any single party government with a slim majority is in hock to its awkward squad.
Forget the polls, Jimmy Anderson has just become England's greatest ever test wicket bowler. Does this achievement not deserve at least a single mention?
To overtake Botham is an impressive record. After a bright few years there's not been much to cheer about recently in English cricket; Anderson however has been consistently good for a long time though. He deserves this achievement.
Still well short of other countries leading wicket takers and considering the amount of test match cricket England play, not to decry Jimmy's achievement.
Australia - Warne 708 wkts, Sri Lanka Murali 800, WI Courtney Walsh (521 from memory) puts 384 into context.
The first two are the world's greatest ever spin bowlers, lolloping in off three paces.
Walsh, with Ambrose, was the last of that extended generation of Windies quicks the like of which we will never see again.
So kudos to Jimmy.
Walsh played until he was 38 - if Anderson lasted that long he would pass him
Just before I go to bed something for HUYFD, Mike Huckabee runs for President:
Philip Rucker @PhilipRucker · 2h 2 hours ago NEW: Huckabee to unveil announcement plans tonight. Also says he's uniquely positioned to beat "Clinton machine" http://wapo.st/1FSs6z7
Forget the polls, Jimmy Anderson has just become England's greatest ever test wicket bowler. Does this achievement not deserve at least a single mention?
To overtake Botham is an impressive record. After a bright few years there's not been much to cheer about recently in English cricket; Anderson however has been consistently good for a long time though. He deserves this achievement.
Still well short of other countries leading wicket takers and considering the amount of test match cricket England play, not to decry Jimmy's achievement.
Australia - Warne 708 wkts, Sri Lanka Murali 800, WI Courtney Walsh (521 from memory) puts 384 into context.
The first two are the world's greatest ever spin bowlers, lolloping in off three paces.
Walsh, with Ambrose, was the last of that extended generation of Windies quicks the like of which we will never see again.
So kudos to Jimmy.
Walsh played until he was 38 - if Anderson lasted that long he would pass him
Indeed. And Warne's Test career was 15 years long, without much interruption. Jimmy's is currently 12 years, with a 2/3-year hiatus in the wilderness.
Maybe the webpage hasn't made it to this side of the atlantic, since I still see the old polls there
Annoying!
You could try reloading the page (ctrl + r), that should force your browser to connect to the UK Polling Report web server rather than serving a cached page.
@BBCAllegra: Newsnight understands Nigel Farage to do 1/2 hr elex i/v same night as big 3 Leaders do Dimbleby 8-9:30pm, Apr 30th. NF in QuestionTime slot
@BBCAllegra: Farage on at 10:30 in Eng & Wales; Leanne Wood gets QT slot in Wales and Sturgeon gets it in Scotland. To reflect where they are strong.
Sounds fair enough to me. Farage will be happy.
Yes, but he'll rate about 1/4 of what the 3 main leaders get for their QT at 8pm.
The 3 main leaders at 8pm should get about 4m - ie similar to the BBC debate.
For the Evan Davis interviews at BBC1 7.30pm, Clegg got 2m and Cameron got 1.8m. Farage will do well to get 1m for an interview at 10.45pm.
Comments
They never liked David Cameron or the Tories anyway, now that they are not needed they can get rid of them, the Tories had a better economic record in 1997 and they still lost.
Frankly the Tories image problem was going all Scrooge (or Donald Trump) on the average middle class or poor, but Cameron choose to try to detoxify with social issues which non-Tory voters cared very little, but Tory voters did and hit the roof and they left for UKIP.
Cameron is no Callaghan, Harry Callaghan that is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VrFV5r8cs0
Do I think its different compared to every other party promising unlimited candy - and actually having a track record of responsibility in recent years too - absolutely.
This is a nation which is hooked on spending money we don't have. Both from the government and for individuals. Voters not rushing for a party not promising maxing out the credit card isn't unsurprising.
Australia - Warne 708 wkts, Sri Lanka Murali 800, WI Courtney Walsh (521 from memory) puts 384 into context.
The Conservatives have almost doubled the national debt in the past five years. How big a credit card did you have in mind?
The Tories wouldn't have won a majority in 28 years ( by 2020 ), would only have scored 33,37, and (35?) in the past three elections, would've failed to win outright and lost in consecutive elections to G Brown and E Milliband (ffs!) and would've cocked up the boundary changes that might've kept them in power. Longer term they have to find a way of appealing better to ethnic minorities. On the plus side I suspect a lot of Kippers might get buyers' remorse as it dawns on them their indulgence has landed them with Ed ( and the Tartan terror), and eventually the ( growing ) population weight in the South and East will get reflected in seats as the boundary commission slowly plods forward.
Labour: well for all of governing for 18 of 23 years from 1997, aside from 1997 and 2001, it's really down to quirks of the electoral system not popularity, having won 36,29, and (35?) in the past three elections ( so less than the Tories). They would've suffered a generational cataclysm in Scotland from which they may ( "may" note not "will") never fully recover for all of Ed being PM ( think the Liberals losing Ireland in the 1880's - 1906 notwithstanding they never quite recovered strategically). They will be caught between pandering to the Celtic fringe and trying not to piss off the English. Hard not to laugh as this will be the rewards of the absolute gerrymandered buggeration that was devolution introduced in 1997, (you can have a federal State or a centralised one - long term anything else is a dog's dinner). Nobody not called Blair has won a workable Labour majority since 1966 ( and he only won 36% in 2005!).
In short we need electoral reform, as we are too fragmented to keep the present system, and to keep a degree of legitimacy.
You'd also find we gave a strong belief in meritocracy and are anti - corporatist / producer monopolist.
@BBCAllegra: Farage on at 10:30 in Eng & Wales; Leanne Wood gets QT slot in Wales and Sturgeon gets it in Scotland. To reflect where they are strong.
Some would say the reverse - a lot of the great West Indies quicks of the 1980's denied any of them getting a mega haul - Holding (only) took 248 wkts for example, although they played a lot less tests by todays yardstick. I would say Murali was postively helped by the fact that Sri Lanka had Vaas who was useful but not great bowler, and nobody else really good in his 800 wicket haul.
Anderson achievement is notable when you consider how many games he was 12th man at the start of his career.
An EU Free Market and Free Movement area is entirely agreeable with liberal beliefs in the power of the individual. If the individual is free to work, trade, move, holiday etc on the entire continent that's a good thing. So long as the EU is about breaking down barriers between nations that's good (and that's the kind of EU the Conservatives used to be the biggest supporters of and Labour the biggest opponents). The problem with the EU now is that instead of lowering international barriers, its about raising new ones. That is undemocratic.
However, more than £300bn is owed to the Bank of England, and no interest is paid on it. Do you think the UK government would go bankrupt over a debt owed to itself? Or do you think it would rolled over in perpetuity? In which case, can you even count it as government debt?
Which takes us down to £1.2 trillion.
In addition, the UK government borrowed to purchase the assets of Northern Rock, and Bradford and Bingley. As those assets roll off, it will naturally lower gross government debt.
Which rakes down to above £1.05 trillion.
Finally, RBS and Lloyds will be fully sold off. Now, you can pick your number for what this is worth, but (realistically) the numberis north of £50bn.
So, post winding down the interventions that took place in the GFC, and eliminating a debt that will never need to be repaid, government debt is perhaps £1 trillion.
So that's debt-to-GDP of, what, 60-65%?
And falling. Nominal GDP growth is north of 4% right now. And the government deficit is going to be around 4% this year. So, debt-to-GDP is probably falling.
Furthermore, Eurozone QE (which means there is negative net issuance in the Eurozone this year) must result in inflows into the UK.
Of course, there will be a sovereign debt crisis this year: but it'll be in Ecuador, Indonesia, and Venezuela. All of whom have borrowed in US Dollars and who are utterly dependent on commodity exports.
@Tabman
I'd welcome a chat, but they aren't wandering around my part of Cardiff with badges saying " I'm an Orange Booker talk to me".
To reiterate I didn't find much to disagree with and if you want Europe reformed - great. Seriously great. Trouble is I don't get anything from the Libs explaining this to me. During the Euros I got leaflets from the Libs stating three million jobs were at risk if we left- total bollocks. And I speak as someone with three decades experience in manufacturing exports whose job relies on our company's exports.
Goodnight.
2011 Welsh Assembly, constituency vote shares:
Con 22%, Lab 37%, Plaid 22%, LD 15%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_for_Wales_election,_2011
Latest YouGov Westminster VI
Con 26%, Lab 40%, Plaid 12%, LD 6%, UKIP 13%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#Wales
http://www.iea.org.uk/2015manifestos
Adding SNP @ 3.25 just seem like good sense at the moment.
Thatcher fought against an unreconstructed socialist party in the dying days of the Soviet era. Cameron is fighting against a spendaholic opposition in an era when people act like spendaholics.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1407/economics/who-owns-government-debt/
26% BoE
31% overseas
23% insurance/pension funds
10% banks
In return we own chunks of other countries debt.
Scots MPs were responsible for massive overspending and adding to our debt.
Voting SNP for a SNP/Lab govt would not change that in the future.
Edit: Damn. Too quick on the draw I guess.
Here's my latest list for changes in the NW:
Labour gains from Tory
Bury N
Carlisle
Lancaster & Fleetwood
Morecambe & Lunesdale (Tory vote used to be around 70% in the 1950's here!)
Warrington S
Weaver Vale
Wirral W (can't stand Esther McVey myself)
(Tories hang on in South Ribble, Chester and Crewe & Nantwich)
Labour gains from Lib Dem
Burnley
Manchester Withington
Lib Dems hold Southport, Cheadle and Hazel Grove - Tory candidate weak in Cheadle from what I read.
"One could be forgiven for assuming that David Cameron is therefore an asset for his party. However, less than 30% of respondents tend to opt for David Cameron in ‘best prime minister’ questions (lower than average Conservative vote intention), and ratings of Cameron on YouGov’s ‘doing well or badly’ leadership question are consistently net negative (and have been since 2010).
This is borne out in BES questions on leadership as well. On a BES dislike-like scale, where 0 = strongly dislike and 10 = strongly like, David Cameron’s mean score is 4.0, Ed Miliband’s is 3.7, Nick Clegg’s is 3.3 and Nigel Farage’s is 3.1. We should be cautious before concluding that David Cameron has an unequivocal leadership advantage."
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/uncategorized/conservative-assets-and-liabilities/
We'll have to tighten our belt to adjust to an ever-growing retired population, made worse by Brown raiding pensions - but that will be quite achievable compared to having to tighten our belt to deal with Brown's out of control spending.
If you can't ride two horses at once, you shouldn't be in the circus.
I'm quite liberal on law and order - I believe in drugs liberalisation and prison reform, whilst being anti-capital punishment, for example - but am absolutely not a LD.
future pensions are not debt. Much of PFI payments are running costs
In general any serving PM implementing austerity will have a negative rating, the fact that he's still out-performing opposition leaders is a tremendous achievement.
Perdix Said: Well said.
More reason to repeal the FTPA.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=11546497&cc=11507694
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-2
I've been very happy with the current coalition, although I don't know whether that (as a Tory) is because of the Lib Dems' influence or just whether the government would have been more centrist than its manifesto anyway.
The pensions were raided, the surplus became ballooning debt and nothing was done about the demographics making it ever harder to deal with. Not just terribly irresponsible can kicking on every difficult decision, but actually making them all worse.
Walsh, with Ambrose, was the last of that extended generation of Windies quicks the like of which we will never see again.
So kudos to Jimmy.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/uk-polling-report-average-2
But I realise now it just hasn't been updated..!
"ICM/Guardian 2015-04-12 39 33 8 7 7 Con +6 0.72"
Philip Rucker @PhilipRucker · 2h 2 hours ago
NEW: Huckabee to unveil announcement plans tonight. Also says he's uniquely positioned to beat "Clinton machine" http://wapo.st/1FSs6z7
Any rumours about the midnight announcement on Twitter?
Con 270, Lab 274, LD 26, UKIP 3, SNP 54
You could try reloading the page (ctrl + r), that should force your browser to connect to the UK Polling Report web server rather than serving a cached page.
The 3 main leaders at 8pm should get about 4m - ie similar to the BBC debate.
For the Evan Davis interviews at BBC1 7.30pm, Clegg got 2m and Cameron got 1.8m. Farage will do well to get 1m for an interview at 10.45pm.